MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

 

Seventy-First Session

March 14, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 14, 2001.  Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mrs.  Marcia de Braga, Chairman

Mr.    Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Mr.    Douglas Bache

Mr.    David Brown

Mr.    John Carpenter

Mr.    Jerry Claborn

Mr.    David Humke

Mr.    John J. Lee

Mr.    John Marvel

Mr.    Harry Mortenson

Mr.    Roy Neighbors

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Ms.   Genie Ohrenschall

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Stephanie Licht, Nevada Wool Growers’ Association

Glenn Trowbridge, Director of Parks and Recreation, Clark County

Charles Musser, Las Vegas Shooting Range

Norm Lindley, Las Vegas Shooting Sports Park

Steve Bradhurst, Consultant to Nye County

Doug Thunder, Nevada State Department of Education

 

 

After the roll call, Vice Chairman Collins called for testimony on A.B. 301.

 

Assembly Bill 301:  Repeals provisions relating to woolen products. (BDR 51-1144)

 

Assemblyman John Lee, on behalf of the people of District 3, commenced testimony in support of A.B. 301. The intent of the proposed legislation was to remove antiquated wording from a law first enacted in 1929.

 

Bob Erickson, Research Director for the Legislative Counsel Bureau, reviewed the process for uncovering outdated laws. Chapter 589 of NRS would be deleted under A.B. 301. The wording was that any garment bought or sold in Nevada must indicate the basic facts about the garment (e.g., percentage of virgin wool).  There had been only one amendment to the 1929 bill, and that occurred in 1969 when penalties for misdemeanor violations were removed.

 

Stephanie Licht, representing the Nevada Wool Growers Association, distributed a packet of information (Exhibit C) and resumed testimony in support of A.B. 301. Ms. Licht summarized the history of the 1929 legislation. Wool that had never been spun, woven, or knitted into any other fabric was the official definition of virgin wool.

 

Vice Chairman Collins asked if in 1929 there was opposition to any form of recycling of fabric. Ms. Licht clarified that the opposition was to labeling of the fabric and that recycling was not the issue. Ms. Licht referred the committee to her information packet. She highlighted the fact that the Ruby Mountains were once home to 30,000 sheep, but today there were fewer than 3,000 sheep. Ms. Light emphasized that the sheep industry had value to the rural counties, and the demise of the sheep population equated to a drop in revenue for local governments.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson asked for a definition of virgin wool. Ms. Licht clarified that virgin wool had never been spun and was being used for the first time.

 

In response to Assemblyman Carpenter, Ms. Licht stated the labeling requirements for wool, as with most products today, were set by the federal government. It was her observation that retailers did not have any issue with the wording of the bill.

 

Vice Chairman Collins closed the hearing on A.B. 301. Chairman de Braga called for a motion. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO PASS.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

Chairman de Braga assigned Assemblyman Lee to handle A.B. 301 on the floor.

 

Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on A.J.R. 6. 

 

Assembly Joint Resolution 6:  Urges Nevada Congressional Delegation to           support release of certain property in Clark County controlled by Bureau     of Land Management for development of regional shooting sports park.        (BDR R-329)

 

Assemblyman Lee read from a prepared statement (Exhibit D) and commenced testimony on A.J.R. 6. This resolution called for the creation of a regional shooting range on BLM land in the Las Vegas area.  Safety was described as the single greatest concern. New housing tracts and an exploding population were encroaching upon the existing desert shooting areas, creating a hazard to the public and to the gun enthusiasts. Assemblyman Lee illustrated the need for the range with examples of accidental shootings and near misses.

 

Assemblyman Lee attended a summit in the wilderness study area in Clark County and observed broken glass, abandoned appliances and other debris scattered across the area. Clearly the land had been neglected and had not been established as a legitimate wilderness area. 

 

Glenn Trowbridge, Director of Parks and Recreation for Clark County, distributed a report (Exhibit E) and resumed testimony in support of A.J.R. 6.  It was his hope that, with the support of the Nevada Legislature, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would release the desired tract of land for development of the regional shooting sports park. Mr. Trowbridge described the park as a major facility and one that would harmonize with the pristine quality of the desert landscape.

 

In addition to addressing the safety issues, Mr. Trowbridge emphasized that the regional shooting park would add to the diversification of the economy. Commitments had been received from sponsors of major competitive events that would constitute approximately 140,000 visitor days.  The need for a structured site was further evidenced by the statistics for firearms in the county: 400,000 registered hand guns, 13,000 concealed weapon permits, and 3,000 police officers who needed a place to train.

 

This facility would address recreational needs, gun safety training classes, and local and national competitive events.         Mr. Trowbridge displayed a sketch of the proposed firing range that illustrated the adequate buffer zones surrounding the park.

 

In response to Assemblyman Marvel, Mr. Trowbridge clarified that the 5,000- acre site was currently designated by BLM as a wilderness study area (WSA). A letter from BLM stated that the site was not meant to be included in the WSA. As such, Mr. Trowbridge was optimistic of the transfer.

 

Chairman de Braga asked if the project would be operated by Clark County. Mr. Trowbridge responded in the affirmative and explained that it would be operated under the Parks and Recreation Department. It was expected to be fully self-supporting within one year of construction. In response to Chairman de  Braga, Mr. Trowbridge added that there would be designated sites for camping, archery, equestrian activity, and hiking.

 

Assemblyman Claborn requested clarification on the safety of 50-caliber weapons and steel jacketed ammunition and, specifically, the added distance required for its safe use. Mr. Trowbridge acknowledged that this issue had been under discussion, and it was generally agreed among experts that it would be integrated with the law enforcement range of the park.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson offered his unqualified support and concurred with the need for the facility. He called attention to an organization in Las Vegas called the Citizens for Active Management of Sunrise Frenchman Mountain area (CAM).  The group had identified some natural bowls in the desert that would be easily converted to a shooting range. Mr. Mortenson suggested this could be an alternate plan if the Bureau of Land Management failed to transfer the acreage.  Mr. Trowbridge stated his familiarity with the CAM organization and acknowledged their shared concern for safety on shooting sites.

 

Assemblyman Collins requested clarification on the site acreage. Mr. Trowbridge explained that BLM had identified 5,000 acres that did not rightfully belong in the wilderness study area. The shooting park would require only 2,800 acres, however, it was their goal to acquire the entire 5,000-acre site.  In response to Assemblyman Collins, Mr. Trowbridge stated that existing shooting ranges would be consolidated at the new site.

 

Assemblyman Brown asked if the El Dorado Valley shooting range had been taken into consideration in their revenue projections. Mr. Trowbridge described the El Dorado range as an excellent project that was geared toward police training activity for Boulder City and Henderson. There would be very limited access to the facility by the public. The adjacent gravel operation would limit the expansion of the shooting range for the next 20 years.

 

Assemblyman Brown stated that it was his understanding that El Dorado would have public access within two years. Mr. Trowbridge requested clarification from Assemblyman Lee.

 

The main focus, according to Assemblyman Lee, was to establish a world class shooting range that would host big events year-round and be self-sufficient within one year. The locals and the visitors would share the new facility. Depending upon the success of the facility, expansion to a second location (e.g., a southern location) would be studied.

 

In response to Assemblyman Brown, Assemblyman Lee explained that El Dorado would be a great location and support had been extended to Mr. Hill, the organizer of El Dorado. His southern site was not viewed as competition and would not alter plans for the BLM site to the north.  Assemblyman Brown concurred and stated that two shooting ranges that were 40 miles apart would not present a problem.

 

On the subject of becoming self-sustaining, Assemblyman Lee assured the committee that transportation funds were requested through Senator Reid’s office. Mr. Trowbridge clarified that the existence of the second range would not threaten the proposal.

 

Charles Musser, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Board in Las Vegas, summarized the evolution of the shooting range project over the last two years. Initial efforts included a workshop to study the feasibility of the project and site visits to other ranges. His office was overwhelmed with letters of support and expressions of interest from a multitude of local government agencies and state officials.

 

Mr. Musser emphasized that the passage of A.J.R. 6 would be essential for the procurement of at least 3,000 acres from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This land had been judged by the BLM to be inadequate for designation as a wilderness study area.

 

Norm Lindley, a Las Vegas resident, offered testimony in support of the Las Vegas Shooting Sports Park. He stated that there was no place to target practice, and the one private club, the Desert Sportsman, had a membership of 1,600 and a long waiting list of applicants. In terms of public safety and training needs for law enforcement, the situation was described as being one of crisis management.

 

The northern location, according to Mr. Lindley, was ideal and would adequately serve almost 80 percent of the southern Nevada population. In contrast, only Boulder City and Henderson would be better served by a southern location. Mr. Lindley emphasized that competitive events and Olympic level training would be scheduled on a regular basis. On the subject of the 50-caliber weapons, Mr. Lindley admitted that there were problems with this powerful rifle and, as it gained popularity, more studies would have to be conducted. A super-trap was described as one way to contain high caliber shooting.

 

Chairman de Braga asked about the chances of development in close proximity to the proposed site. Mr. Lindley stated emphatically that the area was completely buffered, and there would be no chance of development encroaching upon the shooting park.

 

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.J.R. 6 and called for a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO PASS A.J.R. 6.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

 

 

 

Chairman de Braga called for a motion to approve the minutes of the February 7 meeting of the committee.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

 

Chairman de Braga initiated discussion of a work session document and introduced Michael Stewart, Committee Analyst for the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Mr. Stewart commenced discussion on A.B. 120 and stated that there were no amendments to A.B. 120.

 

Assembly Bill 120:  Revises distribution of federal money received by State of           Nevada from lease of federal lands. (BDR 26-97)

 

Assemblyman Neighbors interjected with an update of a meeting held on March 4 in Washington D.C. The National Association of Counties passed a resolution in support of the concept of A.B. 120.

 

Chairman de Braga clarified that the bill had been concurrently referred.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the effective date of the bill could be changed in order to mitigate the impact of lost revenues for the education account. Assemblyman Neighbors clarified that the $2.5 million represented less than one percent of the DSA budget. In 1995 there had been a similar situation, and the threshold had been cut from $10 million to $7 million. Because it was late in the session (1995), it had been requested that we wait. Assemblyman Neighbors emphasized that the rural counties were in desperate need of these funds and that the time had come to follow the law.

 

Assemblyman Neighbors agreed with Assemblyman Marvel that the bill would be referred to Ways and Means. In regard to amending the bill, Assemblyman Neighbors stated that if, in the future, revenues crossed the $7 million threshold, he would not hesitate to amend the bill and allow the revenues to be shared with the Distributed Education Account (DSA).

 

Assemblyman Brown asked for clarification of the dollar amounts listed in Section three of the handout. Assemblyman Neighbors stated that those were the actual sums dispersed to the states for fiscal year 2000. Differences in numbers were attributed to the fact that the federal government worked off a fiscal year and the state worked off a calendar year.

 

If there had been no $7 million threshold in past years, Assemblyman Neighbors explained that the published figures would have bypassed the state and would have gone directly to the county of origin. Of the funds received by the county, 25 percent would have been reserved for educational uses. Assemblyman Neighbors reminded the committee that during the previous session, Lincoln County had to ask the legislature for emergency funds of $1 million for the school.

 

Assemblyman Brown posed the question of whether the funds could be spread across several rural counties rather than just to the county of origin.  Assemblyman Neighbors reiterated the original intent of the law was that the money would be returned to the county impacted by the mineral operations in their backyard. He emphasized that the terminology of A.B. 120 was deliberately crafted to match the language of the federal law.

 

Steve Bradhurst, representing Nye County, offered clarification of the matter. He stated that none of the counties had ever received money from the federal mineral leasing program. Through the years, the revenue threshold had started out as an overstatement and then had become a moving target as the mining activity fluctuated. As a result, the earnings never met the threshold for the county of origin.

 

Assemblyman Neighbors, in response to Assemblyman Marvel, stated that he had pursued fairness on this matter for 17 years and, to date, not one dime had ever been received by the rural counties.

 

Assemblyman Marvel reviewed the opinion of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and stated that a threshold should never have been established.

 

Doug Thunder, representing the Nevada Department of Education, verified that the impact to their budget was $2.5 million for each of the next two years. In response to Assemblyman Brown, Mr. Thunder stated that the money would still be received by the state and would be placed into a separate fund for distribution back out to the counties.

 

In response to Chairman de Braga, Mr. Thunder clarified that the total education budget was $650 million per year, and the $2.5 million in question would represent a tiny amount. Regardless of the impact, Chairman de Braga added that the real issue was that the money should never have been diverted to the Department of Education. It now presented a challenge to the Education budget.

 

Chairman de Braga called for a motion and a re-referral to Ways and Means.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO PASS AND

RE-REFER A.B. 120.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

Mr. Stewart introduced discussion on A.B. 176.

 

Assembly Bill 176:  Revises provisions relating to carrying out certain programs in Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR 26-700)

 

No opposition was heard in committee. Chairman de Braga called for a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO PASS A.B. 176.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

Chairman de Braga called for a motion on A.B. 177. Assemblyman Marvel asked for clarification on how the bonds would be issued. It was stated to be a medium obligation bond over a 10-year period.

 

Assembly Bill 177:  Authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to carry out             Environmental Improvement Program in Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR S-701)

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO PASS A.B. 177.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

 

Chairman de Braga called for a motion on A.J.R. 4.

 

Assembly Joint Resolution 4:  Commends State of California and California Tahoe Conservancy for efforts pertaining to carrying out Environmental Improvement Program in Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR R-702)

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO PASS A.J.R. 4.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

Chairman de Braga clarified for the committee that there was a fiscal note attached to the bill. Assemblyman Brown was assigned to handle the Tahoe bills on the floor.  With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:53 p.m.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                        RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

                                                                                         

 

 

                               

June Rigsby

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

 

 

DATE: